Energy crisis in Transnistria, as a result of Gazprom ceasing supply

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, Bronco said:

 

This. 

There is absolutely no denying that the American gov & it's sphere of influence do all of the above. No one in their right mind would deny it. 

But you ignore that the other major super powers do exactly this as well. In a 2001 election in Tranistria, one of the regions declared the pro-Russian leader Smirnov had won 103.6% of the vote. Over the course of 20 years Smirnov became increasingly autonomous from Russia. In 2011, Putin & his allies withdrew support for Smirnov and gave 300million roubles to his opposition candidate. 2 weeks after first withdrawing his support for Smirnov, Putin instigated criminal prosecutions of Smirnov's family. 
And that's just Transistria, which is just a glorified Russian military base. 

Then there's the current issues in Georgia (on top of the previous Putin issues in Georgia). The assasination of Litvinenko, the attempted assasination of the Skripals. 

There's Russia & Wagners' activity in a number of African nations which is no different to American activity in Korea, Vietnam & the Middle East. There's the Chinese Belt & Road initative (which is just a carbon copy Marshall pact.

The entire mess that is the Balkans & Southern Eastern Europe exist because of both Russian & American imperialism. And that Gorbachev decided to take the British Empire's approach to winding up empire and going for a "sort it out yourselves, nothing bad can happen surely". Tranistria exists as it currently does because of the Russian/former Soviet 14th Guards Army occupying the territory and at this point only continues to exist because it's of military importance to Russian movements within the Black Sea region (like Taiwan's independence only exists because of it's military importance to America). And various attempts at solutions since 1992 have failed because of Americans influencing Moldova & Russia influencing Transnitria. 

Americans have been overactive in Eastern Europe. But the eastern european nations have been receptive for one major reason - Putin's consistent imperialism in the caucus regions of central Asia from his very first term in power. They all rightfully feared Putin's desire to restore Russian greatness. Americans took advantage of that through NATO expansion. 

I think you overstate it when you say America's interventionism is the most far reaching in the world. Again, no one sane would deny America is an interventionist superpower. But the other superpowers do it just as much. China does it best. America's interventionism is increasingly limited in power to Europe, South America & half the Middle East. Beyond historical ties in Asia, it's relevance and influence there has diminshed to nations with longstanding historical ties & Japan which does it out of geopolitical necessity. It's practically irrelevant on the African continent these days. 

The primary difference in our recognition of foreign policy interventionism is the difference in media freedoms between the 3 superpowers. Yes, western media is biased and is increasingly so - but the freedom of the press is also stronger and has allowed significantly less restricted or surpressed coverage of American foreign policy. Hell, study the freedom of war reporters in Vietnam, no other country has ever allowed that and the Americans haven't since.

The other issue is, America likes to ****ing talk about it which is the dumbest thing ever. China is far more prolific at dragging nations into it's sphere of influence and getting them to sing from the hymn sheet, it's just far smarter at it as well. The Belt & Road initiative is a masterclass in foreign relations, and the reason why I think China will end the decade as the only superpower without having fired a single bullet. 
 

It’s curious that all of these “bad” things come from people or nations deemed as enemies by the U.S. The information we receive about them often comes through sources that are directly or indirectly controlled by the U.S. and its allies.

An infamous example of this is when a number of outlets reported that Kim Jong-un had banned any male North Korean citizen from ever getting his haircut. Then, a few years later, they reported the exact opposite, that every male was obligated to get the same haircut. These supposedly "neutral" outlets are not reliable.

Another example is Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector warmly received by the US and given every platform to say impossibly bad things about North Korea. She has made claims as absurd as saying that people there carry trains manually instead of riding them (???). Media outlets like Radio Free Asia, which amplify such narratives, are directly financed by US agencies (like the NED) as part of an effort to destabilize regions that don't submit to their influence.

And now, regarding China, suddenly countries signing infrastructure agreements as part of the B&R are also considered victims of imperialism? Give me a break. The US isn't dumb. They make these claims for a reason. Even they don't believe it’s imperialism. They say this so people begin associating China and Russia (conveniently, American adversaries) with imperialism, and not the US, which, by far, has the largest number of military bases on foreign soil (am I overstating their influence given facts like these?).

But yes, China, the country that consistently refrains from commenting on other nations' internal affairs, that repeatedly declares it has no interest in exporting revolution, and that believes each nation should find its own path to development, is somehow the imperialist one.

[Bronco 25,129]

3 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Agreed with this except this part: In the past Moldova itself was a Russian puppet, specially under the presidency of Voronin (who wanted to incorporate Transnistria in a confederation). Moldova being pro-EU presently is an anomaly and the result of decades of Soviet propaganda finally washing out.

I was primarily referring to the Kozak memorandum. Where the US, Europe & Moldova were on one side (although Moldova had initially been receptive), Transnistrians were on another & Russia and Transnistria's leadership were on a third lol. 

[Jill 31,812]

13 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

So basically the root of what is wrong about your takes: you just imperalistically look at the sides and decide the side that may have ties with the US must be bad  and the opposing side must be good (even though you are otherwise fully uneducated about it).

My post is literally not about Ukraine, it mentioned Ukraine tangentially and contextually as it related to Moldova and Transnistria. Your whole post is about Ukraine because this is the only lense you can use to look at the situation.

The fall of the USSR is the best thing that happened in Europe since WW2: so many opressed nations managed to gain their independence at that moment and exercise their right to self-determination. You cannot claim you are anti-imperialism and not celebrate the implications of this event.

Kids where being offered as sexual slaves in the streets after the fall of the USSR. A big portion of their population suddenly had no job and had their living standards slashed overnight. To think that is great is the most imperialist and privileged perspective one can have.

Edit: And don't get me started on you take about my opinions on the US. I literally said that it was not a general rule. And wtf is the meaning of imperialistic look in this context.

[Bronco 25,129]

1 minute ago, Jill said:

But yes, China, the country that consistently refrains from commenting on other nations' internal affairs, that repeatedly declares it has no interest in exporting revolution, and that believes each nation should find its own path to development, is somehow the imperialist one.

The BRI is debt-trap economics. Just like the Marshall plan was for Europe. 

Imperalism isn't always bloody conflict & violent supression, it just usually ends that way.

The BRI is doing great things, and is able to do so because America & Europe became increasingly insular when it came to the African nations despite having caused untold chaos and damage there. 

But it is interventionist imperialist politics. Its stated goal by Xi was to allow China to expand its regional leadership. 

The BRI looks brilliant now because like the Marshall pact is in the delivery phase. So China currently, like the US previously, can rely on the carrot alone to achieve repayments and to make states receptive to China's interests in the region. 

However, do you think China will remain a cordial lender if its terminally ill property market collapses when the bailouts start working? Or is it far more sensible to expect China to start calling in the collateral & applying the stick like the US did to the Marshall pact nations when the US economy started suffering in the 1970s and it forced austerity on nations like the UK? 

And as for your other point. Yes America does amplify some absurd nonsense about nations it opposes. Those nations do so as well. 

But it is incredibly disappointing that you are so dismissive of the idea that the other superpowers are human rights abusers just like the US simply because it doesn't suit your narrative. 

Anyway, I've said my peace. But I don't think you've got any interest in honest rational debate given your position on human rights abuses in superpower nations is to talk aboit haircuts in North Korea. So I won't be responding further on this subject or to you in future and will go off to bed. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

4 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I was primarily referring to the Kozak memorandum. Where the US, Europe & Moldova were on one side (although Moldova had initially been receptive), Transnistrians were on another & Russia and Transnistria's leadership were on a third lol. 

I don't think the rejection of the Kozak Memorandum was bad, as it happened under rightful popular pressure, and in fact it was rejected by Voronin who was Russian-aligned himself. 

The plan presented several issues risking causing a blockage in policy-making. A lower house, elected by proportional representation, would pass legislation by simple majority. All organic laws (pertaining to the change of the federal power structure - section 7b) would need the assent of the senate (not "all laws"), however, whose representation would be disproportionate with respect to population figures: 13 senators elected by the federal lower house, nine by Transnistria and four by Gagauzia. By 2004 Transnistria had 14% and Gagauzia 4% of Moldova's total population. By this plan, Transnistrian senators would be able to block changes to the constitution of the unified state.

This doesn't ring fair, it was basically the status-quo with a prospect of Russian troops eventually leaving (though not instantly), plus Russia was able to block laws in Chisinau proper and turn Moldova into a perpetual vassal state. 

[Jill 31,812]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

But it is interventionist imperialist politics. Its stated goal by Xi was to allow China to expand its regional leadership. 

This was never the stated goal. I can tell you this because referring to themselves as a "regional leader" is absolutely a no-no in public statements coming from the Chinese government. They don't refer to themselves as leaders of anything, but instead repeat the fact that they don't believe that any country or system is above the other, and that the future of politics is a win-win relationship between all countries in an equal international stage. They believe, for this reason, in multipolarism. You can find a number of examples for this:

"The BRI, drawing inspiration from the ancient Silk Road and focusing on enhancing connectivity, aims to enhance policy, infrastructure, trade, financial and people-to-people connectivity, inject new impetus into the global economy, create new opportunities for global development, and build a new platform for international economic cooperation" (from a speech by Xi Jinping, source)

Later on in the same speech, he said:

"Belt and Road cooperation is based on the principle of "planning together, building together, and benefiting together." It transcends differences between civilizations, cultures, social systems, and stages of development. It has opened up a new path for exchanges among countries, and established a new framework for international cooperation. Indeed, the BRI represents humanity's joint pursuit of development for all".

As for the way they see themselves in the international stage, take for example the position of Wang Yi:

About the positioning of China as a developing country, Wang Yi pointed out that China is undoubtedly a developing country at the moment, even when China becomes stronger and more prosperous in the future, it will remain a staunch member of the developing countries, make developing countries as the foundation of Chinese diplomacy, and forever be a reliable friend and sincere partner of the developing countries. (Source)

If there's something that is very valuable in China's political system, is how transparent they are on their ideology, their studies on socialism, their goals as a country, and the strategies they have to accomplish those goals. They're all in plain sight, but for some reason nobody ever reads and studies them. China is like a big business and it is managed following a Marxist perspective on the economy and capitalism. For this reason the very aptly refer to their development status as the first stage of socialism. Their objective is to develop their productive forces, something that is studied with great detail, specially since Deng Xiaoping's time. In a global era, you can't do that without the cooperation of others. As Xi said:

"Countries taking the lead in economic development should give a hand to their partners who are yet to catch up. We should all treat each other as friends and partners, respect and support each other, and help each other succeed" (Source). And also: "When you give roses to others, their fragrance lingers on your hand". (same source).

If there's any reason why initiatives like the BRI are so successful, is because China doesn't treat its commercial partners as lesser countries, but equal ones. As for the "debt trap" myth, it's obviously something that came out of (surprise!) Western, US-aligned media. You're proving my point by limiting yourself only to what they say.

It's such an awful lie, even, that The Atlantic (as you may know, very pro-US and Western), says it's baseless. According to their article:

"Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country".

Furthermore, even Voice of America, a US gov-supported outlet, confirmed China pardoned the debt of African countries in several opportunities, although from a very non-neutral perspective that mentions the unexistent debt trap. 

Following and taking all of this into account, China's position on this matter is evident. From an article of the state-owned Global Times that even cites the aforementioned Atlantic article:

"Western capital is the largest creditor of developing countries. According to the World Bank's 2022 statistics on international debt, 28.8 percent of Africa's outstanding external debt is owed to multilateral financial institutions and 41.8 percent to commercial creditors composed mainly of Western financial institutions. These two types of institutions together hold nearly three-quarters of the debt, thus making them the largest creditors of African debt. 

In 2021, according to the director of the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, after reviewing thousands of Chinese loan documents, mainly for projects in Africa, CARI found no evidence that China deliberately pushes poor countries into debt as a way to seize their assets or gain a greater say in their internal affairs. CARI data shows that China holds 17 percent of Africa's total external debt, far less than the West. 

The debt issue is, in essence, a development issue. The key to solving this problem lies in ensuring that loans provide real benefits. Let us take Africa as an example. Western countries' financing for Africa is mainly concentrated in non-productive sectors, and most lending is tied to political constraints, such as human rights and judicial reform. Western countries have failed to truly promote economic development. Instead, they have served as tools to control and cause harm to Africa. 

China always respects the will of African peoples and keeps their states' real needs in mind. Chinese investment and funding for Africa are mainly focused on infrastructure construction and manufacturing-related sectors. As we enter the 21st century, China has been proactively working to support Africa's economic development and has provided an alternative to the traditional financing channels of the Paris Club - an informal group of financial organizations of the world's 22 richest countries, which proceeds with a so-called renegotiation of the bilateral public debt of countries in the Global South".

If you have the time, all of these are very interesting sources! I could go on and on but those are the most important bits methinks. For more information on China's state ideology from their side, I'd recommend reading English sources like Qiushi. Authors like Roland Boer are great as an introduction to the ideology for a Western audience, especially works like "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners", which is a very interesting book that will help you understand more, even if you still hold the same opinion afterward. Also, for a shorter read, I recommend you "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom: My Experience of China Today", although the first one is the most comprehensive one by far.

As Deng Xiaoping put it, one should "Emancipate the Mind, Seek Truth From Facts and Unite As One In Looking to the Future".

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

A symbolic image Transnistria's administrative building with the lights off

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

Transnistria only has 24 more days worth of resources according to the lastest meeting at Tiraspol (https://x.com/iamdenya_de/status/1876964997315670326)